Look we get it! You don't like the movie because you want more action! Because that's like the only difference between it and Casino Royale. Well aside from the fact that Casino Royale unleashes two giant action set-pieces that really do nothing but fucking stop the movie dead.

But I'm done with all these weird James Bond arguments. Casino Royale's the best James Bond movie, Skyfall is the second best. I hope the series continues to be everything TCD hates.

Except the movie did set Silva up as cool and calculating. He was meticulous and deliberate, and Q even noted that his plan had been in the works for years.

As I stated previously, I don't have a problem with bug-fuck crazy villain plots in a Bond movie, at least in terms of objective. Most Bond villains have some ridiculous plan to destroy or takeover the world. But Silva's goal was boring. He just wanted to kill one person. And he did things that ran completely contrary to achieving his goal. I don't mind if a Bond villain plan is convoluted, as long as it follows its own internal logic. Silva was actively trying to kill the guy he needed to have capture him, and then the actual assassination part of his grand plot was about as clever and effective as a smash-and-grab 7-11 robbery.

But, but, Silva does have a Bug Fuck Crazy plot which he pursues with coolness and precision! So we agree!

I also think you are ignoring some of the important (barely) subtexts of the film: M represents "Olde England" , the England of WWII and the Cold War, as well as Traditional values like patriotism and Stiff-Upper-Lipness. All things Silva hates and wants to tear down. So killing M is not only a deeply personal act, it is also fraught with deep symbolic meaning.

So yeah, it's not like Moonraker where the entire planet is at stake, but one could argue that two world views are clashing in this film, vying for supremacy.

And of course the best way to achieve an intimate murder is to charge into a room full of people with guns blazing. Because there was absolutely no way a man with the resources Silva had could have pulled off a face-to-face murder. It was literally the only choice he had.

Yes, because he wanted to kill her at the hearing. Seeing her gutted by Politicians then literally by him would be the coup de grace. And "prove" that his world view was correct.

But, but, Silva does have a Bug Fuck Crazy plot which he pursues with coolness and precision! So we agree!

I also think you are ignoring some of the important (barely) subtexts of the film: M represents "Olde England" , the England of WWII and the Cold War, as well as Traditional values like patriotism and Stiff-Upper-Lipness. All things Silva hates and wants to tear down. So killing M is not only a deeply personal act, it is also fraught with deep symbolic meaning.

So yeah, it's not like Moonraker where the entire planet is at stake, but one could argue that two world views are clashing in this film, vying for supremacy.

Well, I disagree with you on the "coolness and precision" part, but you make an interesting point.

Here's the thing, I don't hate this movie. I just have some serious hang-ups with it. Part of me talking about it here is to get some opposing viewpoints so I can reassess my opinion. I'll be seeing it again to see how it plays for me a second time. Thanks to everyone who attempted to actually be thoughtful and constructive in their counterarguments.

A[quote name="TCD" url="/community/t/145354/skyfall-post-release/550#post_3421306"]
By what standard is it better? Because you say so?

I actually made this very point upthread. The James Bond franchise has never been a clinic on great filmmaking. Which is why I find it strange that I would be criticized for complaining that Skyfall lacked action because A) Bond films are first and foremost action movies and B) why does someone who clearly dislikes so much of a film franchise show up for the 23rd entry?

And here's the bad news for the old school Bond haters: Skyfall was clearly setting up the franchise to return to that approach. So I hope you like crazy gadgets, theatrical villains in ridiculous hideouts, and more fights scene involving some kind of man-eating animal, because I'm willing to be that's what we're getting in Bond 24.
[/quote]

Bond fighting apex predators is something that goes all the way back to the novels. I don't have a problem with the occasional cool hideout or survivalist action scene (I can think of a whole bunch of animals I'd love to see 007 take on) so long as its grounded in the real world.

AI was just thinking about how they got in the Bond, James Bond line after leaving it out for Quantum, and it occurred to me that unless I am mistaken, they did something clever with the martini shaken not stirred bit. They cut to a girl shaking a martini for Bond, and he compliments her technique as "perfect". Unless I am wrong, we don't actually hear him order the drink.

AI avoided this thread like the plague so forgive me if i bring up something that was already mentioned in the previous 12.

I was a bit hasty in calling Silva a Top 3 villain but he is one of the better ones. Bardems performance was fucking awesome. Love the exasperated look he gives Bond after the knifing. And his plan made sense to me, dramatics and all.

Craig knocked it out of the park. Except that I didn't like him crying over M. He is well on his way to surpassing Connery. But for me, he's just not there yet.

Love all the little nods or knocks on the previous entries. He had Connerys car (loved his playful threat to eject M) and opened in Istanbul. Some of the one liners were Moore worthy as was the old couple commenting on his determination to get on the train. And the little dig from Q about the exploding pen being aimed(at least to me) at Brosnans over gadgeted era. Even the palm gun was a call back to LTK.

Moneypenny was top notch and I would like to see the expanded role continue. Really loved the new M's throwback office and padded door. It's a shame they wasted the "don't cock it up 007" line before he became M. I mean the line worked but it would have been dynamite in a future installment.

Oh, and I do agree with whoever said that we are headed for Blofeld before Craig is done. Sort of how we knew the Joker was coming for Bales Batman, that nuTrek will get to Kahn and that Lex Zluthor will be in the sequel to The Man of Steel.

A[quote name="Dr Harford" url="/community/t/145354/skyfall-post-release/600#post_3421395"]I was just thinking about how they got in the Bond, James Bond line after leaving it out for Quantum, and it occurred to me that unless I am mistaken, they did something clever with the martini shaken not stirred bit. They cut to a girl shaking a martini for Bond, and he compliments her technique as "perfect". Unless I am wrong, we don't actually hear him order the drink.[/quote]

No mistake, that's totally what they did. Thought that was a nice wink without being too winking about it, if that makes sense. They said it without really saying it or drawing too much attention to the fact that they weren't saying it and promptly moved on.

I LOVE that Bonds home is being blown to shit, and only the car getting destroyed gets his revenge face going.

This is actually a problem for me. Earlier in the film, the mere mention of the word "Skyfall" causes him to lose his shit. But then when it's being blown to smithereens, he only gets emotional about the car?! It doesn't match up.

A[quote name="zak chase" url="/community/t/145354/skyfall-post-release/600#post_3421422"]
This is actually a problem for me. Earlier in the film, the mere mention of the word "Skyfall" causes him to lose his shit. But then when it's being blown to smithereens, he only gets emotional about the car?! It doesn't match up.
[/quote]

Oh Zak come on you're smarter than that. Why can't Skyfall having such an impact on him be because of bad memories? He clearly hated the place.

I suppose it can. Not saying it's a plot hole or anything. But if Mendes is going to be so ballsy as to offer up this tantalizing piece of Bond-ian lore on screen, it just seems to me they could have done more with it from a character perspective other than "Bond hates this place. He's glad to see it go boom."

ASeriously? They did, albeit implicitly. It's not literally just the building itself, it's that Skyfall is obviously a place that represents a lot of pain and bad memories, maybe some good ones as well, but he's conflicted about it at best, and is not keen on revisiting his past. Going there for the climax felt like symbolically peeling back the layers of who this person is and where he comes from.

I enjoyed seeing the 60's padded door to the new M office. Can Bond please fling a hat on a coat hanger at the start of the next film?

It's stupid, but I absolutely want the next Bond movie to have a bit where Bond has to grab a SWAT helmet or something to shield himself during an explosion. The next time we see him, he's walking into M's office and casually dropping the smoking thing on the hanger.

A[quote name="TCD" url="/community/t/145354/skyfall-post-release/550#post_3421370"]And of course the best way to achieve an intimate murder is to charge into a room full of people with guns blazing. Because there was absolutely no way a man with the resources Silva had could have pulled off a face-to-face murder. It was literally the only choice he had.
[/quote]

You mean when he charges into the room where M has faced public humiliation, been called out as unnecessary and incompetent to the point of costing lives, and would have presumably been removed from her post in a very public way? You don't understand why Silva might be interested in killing her in that room?

More than he hates the house? How about he learned his parents were dead and he was an orphan there? Remember the line about hiding in the secret tunnel and coming out of it a man? Seriously guys, it's like I'm surrounded by a bunch of Dave Chens today.

Maybe we need to stress REALIZING YOU'RE AN ORPHAN. I guess if some audience members haven't lost a parent yet they just don't understand the emotional devastation that's implied by Skyfall. That ranch isn't important because James spent his boyhood years there, it's important because Bond, the blunt violent instrument began his story there.

You mean when he charges into the room where M has faced public humiliation, been called out as unnecessary and incompetent to the point of costing lives, and would have presumably been removed from her post in a very public way? You don't understand why Silva might be interested in killing her in that room?

I understand why Silva would have wanted to kill M in that room. What I don't understand why he wanted to do it in such a half-ass, destined-to-fail manner.

And because he wanted to do it himself and see it happen. And as the climax suggests, probably intended it to be a suicide mission. And almost does succeed.

Then he should have walked in with a bomb strapped to him, looked M dead in the eye, and hit the detonator. Achieves all of the above, and guarantees results. But I guess he was too crazy to come up with such an obvious idea.

AI mean seriously, if thats what your criticism of that segment of the film comes down to it's pretty moronic. Why didn't the villain do something that would stop the film dead in its tracks and end it 2/3 of the way in? Come on.